|
Dave Coley
|
Why is getting stuck in the middle (=mixing the 3 types of competitive advantage) so problematic? Could an intelligent mix of these 3 be preferable? (...) Read more? Sign up for free
|
Please register now to read all responses and to join this discussion yourself. It's easy and 100% free.
Sign up for free Log in
|
| |
|
Gary Hawkins
|
|
Mixed strategy = unprofitable
If a firm does not dedicate itself to one of the 3 strategies by Porter, it will almost certainly suffer from poor profitability. Why? Because it will lose both the (many) customers who demand the lowest possible prices and the (fewer but very profitable) customers who are prepared to pay a premium price for the best offering in the market. Furthermore, the corporate structure, culture, reputation, marketing efforts, motivation systems, etc of firms with a mixed strategy are likely to be unfocused and ineffective.
|
| |
|
Magnus
|
|
Multiple business units
Porter mentioned that is is possible that firms create multiple seperate business units and can then realize multiple strategies.
|
| |
|
Jane
|
|
Three-circle analysis
As it happens I am just reading an interesting sho (...)
|
| |
|
David
|
|
Stuck in the middle is not so bad
From experience I think that practically 'stuck in (...)
|
| |
|
C J Jacobs
|
|
Stuck in the middle and environment
A common theme of current strategic thinking is th (...)
|
| |
|
Jaap de Jonge, Editor, Netherlands
|
|
Porter on Stuck in the Middle
In Competitive Advantage (p 17) Porter says: "A fi (...)
|
| |
|
Fereidoon, Student (MBA), Iran
|
|
Comment
Don't forget trade-off because of them you can't b (...)
|
| |
|
Adeola Olisawo, Student (University), United Kingdom
|
|
Could 'Stuck in the Middle' Be Applied to Service Industry?
I found the 'stuck in the middle' discussion inter (...)
|
|
